Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

Userbox creation stopped
1) That userboxes (however they may be defined) are, until the close of this case, not to be created. Any user creating a user box will be warned, and persistant creation of boxes despite this warning may results in blocking.  Any user box created may be speedily deleted regardless of it's content, with the proviso that this deletion be noted here.  This injunction does not affect normal editing of existing user boxes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It is pretty clear that the issue is not userboxes but objectionable userboxes. This blanket injunction would apply to all userboxes, even such harmless and fun ones as "user rainbow". Actually the issue is the relationship between Tony Sidaway's actions and userbox policy as it existed at the time of his actions. Fred Bauder 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I see no pressing need here. Userbox creation per se was never the issue; moreover the rate of new userbox production has reduced greatly. From some 2000 in January, the rate has fallen to about 600 in the first two weeks of February, comparable with the rate for December. The immediate issue here in my opinion is reproduction of deleted content, so an injunction on recreation of deleted templates might be useful, but I hardly think it's necessary at this stage. I also share Lar's reservations on whether it could ever be workable. --Tony Sidaway 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * This seems like a reasonable idea iff paired with a hold on deletion as below. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this really a workable idea? I'm just asking! I see the desire for balance but I think since anyone can create templates, enforcing a project wide hiatus on creation of boxes may be problematic. FAR more users can create things than can delete them. Also as written it's rather unclear. Does it mean that for example I can't do any new uses of user userbox on my user page? ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox deletion stopped
2) That userboxes (however they may be defined) are, until the close of this case, not to be deleted. Any admin deleting a user box will be warned, and persistant deletion of boxes despite this warning may results in blocking.  Any user box deleted may be speedily restored regardless of its content, with the proviso that this restoration be noted here.  This injunction does not affect normal editing of existing user boxes, which may be required for existing "clearly divisive" user boxes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Extremely gross or disruptive material may be deleted. This includes userboxes. The controversy involves the middle ground where the userbox is arguably disruptive but not obviously so to everyone. Fred Bauder 15:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again I see no pressing need. There is no massacre of userboxes; indeed they're being created at many times the rate at which they're being deleted.  Let us not permit the philosophy of Chicken Little to color our decisions. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Just asking for a cease fire, paired with the injunction above. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * this also seems tough to achieve. who defines "clearly divisive" ?? ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty much the point. Since we can't agree on what "clearly divisive" is, treat them all the same and sofixit.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Only about 10% of userbox deletion is controversial (see User:Physchim62/Userboxen or the deletion logs), and userbox deletion accounts for only 0.5% of total deletion. This proposal is way too severe. Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway banned from editing these arbitration pages
4) A quick analysis of the edits to date to these pages: Editor                       Count     % Tony Sidaway                    56    54% Tony Sidaway m                  19    18% Aaron Brenneman                 12    12% Haukurth                         6    6% Lar                              4    4% Johnleemk                        2    2% Johnleemk m                      2    2% Physchim62                       1    1% SCZenz                           1    1% Aaron                            1    1% Grand Total                      104


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Actually if anything going on for far too long would not be a point in Tony's favor... you think we like to read this stuff? In any case, no, not workable. Though I would prefer it if any refactoring was left to a clerk not involved in the case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposals and comments by the parties are encouraged. Fred Bauder 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Kudos to Crotalus. He's writing the encyclopedia. ---Tony Sidaway 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm tempted to quote "wikipedia is not a soapbax" but it's very clear that allowing the editor with the most free time to carve requests for arbitration into their own image is not good for the encyclopedia. Let Tony get a mediator, or put suggested edits to this page on his talk, or any method that will allow the floor to be yeilded to other participants.  This should not be about who is able to yell the loudest and longest. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, what? Tony's a party in this arbitration.  He has to be able to comment on the case, add evidence, and so on.  Or do I misunderstand which pages you're claiming he's not allowed to edit? -- SCZenz 22:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, Aaron :) You've got to allow the guy to edit pages in his own case even if he is unusually prolific. I've got to admit, though, that I'm mentally awarding points to Crotalus for filing a case and then completely ignoring it in favor of editing articles on US coinage :) Haukur 22:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When we take out minor edits, almost 70% of the contributions to this page are by a single editor. Does that seem healthy? - brenneman  {T}  {L}  23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the case is named after him. -- SCZenz 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it were unhealthy, there would surely be some bad stuff on this page requiring amendments or excisions. Look at the substance, not the style, of his edits. For all we know, Tony may just suck at using the preview button. Besides, as others have said, it's impractical to ban a party to the case from editing pages about it. Johnleemk | Talk 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You gotta be kidding!? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This will be unworkable. The main party in a arbitration case must have access to the Workshop, and so far I cannot see that Tony has been doing anything disruptive here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated metrics below. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

editor	 	  Total     Percent Tony Sidaway 	 	145	43% Aaron Brenneman 	40	12% David Gerard 	 	30	9% Nandesuka 	 	24	7% Geni 	 	 	16	5% SCZenz 	 		14	4% ... Aaron 	 	 	1	0% Ral315 	 		1	0% MegamanZero 	 	1	0% Dmcdevit 	 	1	0% Grand Total	 	335	100%

Aaron Brenneman restricted from editing pages of this arbitration
Aaron Brenneman may not directly edit pages relating to this arbitration. He may edit on the talk pages of this arbitration.


 * Comment by arbitrators:
 * He's not a party, but it'd still be silly and unnecessary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposals and comments by others is both permitted and encouraged. Fred Bauder 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As a point of information, I was a party to the Webcomics case, post facto. I always join myself to cases in which I intend to contribute evidence. Around half of the findings of fact and one of the two remedies in that case were written by me, and many of the other findings of fact contained substantial text written by me. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * He's all over these pages trying to nail Tony on anything he can, substantial or procedural, large or small, even though not involved in the case himself. That's obnoxious but not an offense ... but when he seriously proposes that the defendant not be allowed to edit the case pages at all, that's past the point of being taken seriously. If he has a substantive issue, he should join the case properly. Else stop acting querulously - David Gerard 07:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, Ad hominem? If you'd like to point out a section below that you think is not relevant, or dispute the numbers above, please do so.  If you'd like graphic evidence of what I'm referring to please see the 15,000 words in Webcomics/Withdrawn or the 23,500 at Webcomics/Workshop.  First note that Tony was not a party to that case, and that many of the issues he raised were explicitly ruled out in the "accept" comments of the arbitrators, per your objections above.  Then examine the breakdown on number of edits (excluding those marked as minor) for the webcomics workshop page below.
 * Now it's all fine for us to say "a person has a right to defend themselves" and "it must all be good stuff" but I'd suggest that there are many angles from which to tell the same story, and that by allowing a single editor to overwhelmingly dominate the editing we decrease the chances of hearing all sides.
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  11:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor 	           Count	% Tony Sidaway 		279	37.8% Snowspinner 		60	8.1% SCZenz 		       51	6.9% Jtkiefer 		44	6.0% Filiocht 		38	5.1% Aaron Brenneman 	30	4.1% Geogre 		       27	3.7% Mindspillage 		26	3.5% Kelly Martin 		24	3.2% Paul August 		24	3.2% Sjakkalle 		23	3.1% Nandesuka 		18	2.4% Dformosa 		14	1.9% Pilatus 		14	1.9% ClockworkSoul 		11	1.5% Dragonfiend 		11	1.5% Lar 			10	1.4% Sean Black 		9	1.2% 216.234.130.130 	7	0.9% Tabor 			5	0.7% Cryptic 		5	0.7% Fred Bauder 		4	0.5% Fangz 			2	0.3% 66.101.59.18 		1	0.1% Titoxd 		       1	0.1% The Epopt 		1	0.1% Total Result		739


 * You're missing something important here, Aaron. Tony didn't really get what he wanted out of the decision in that case.  So you seem to have proved that how much he edits doesn't really matter. (To be even-handed, I should mention the fairly obvious fact that excluding Aaron from these pages is just about as nonsensical as excluding Tony.) -- SCZenz 17:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's statement on draft RfC
5) Tony Sidway made a statement that he would not delete user boxes not restore any articles for the month of February.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is absolutely false. I gave no such undertaking. --Tony Sidaway 07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Just a statement of fact. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Aaron, can we see a diff on this? Once we can see what he said, this statement can be clarified. -- SCZenz 08:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now at 2.2 below. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If no one screams I'll move this to withdrawn. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The operation of User:Userboxes was not an abuse of Wikipedia
11) Crotalus horridus' operation of his secondary account was acceptable. Users may recreate deleted templates in their userspace to serve as drop-in replacements for the deleted templates and it is acceptable to use a "role account" for the purpose.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Either this or 10. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Uh...not really. In the first place, this presumes that the deletion was correct. Otherwise if some rogue admin deleted, say, template:main and protected it from recreation, and I (hypothetically, remember) decided to recreate it in my userspace, I would fall foul of this. Let's not be slaves to process/policy. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If a template is wrongly deleted, it should be undeleted by consensus, not recreated in userspace. As much as I'd love to have User:SCZenz/Main be part of the main page, it doesn't make any sense. -- SCZenz 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? If common sense tells you the admin was just plain crazy, why not do it? (Especially if the original deletion was itself out of process.) I'm thinking along the lines of a WP:SNOW situation here. (Not that that applies to this particular case; I'm just thinking that this FoF appears to unnecessarily create a false dichotomy.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If common sense tells me the admin was completely nuts, I'd recreate the page in the proper place. If I think the admin was dead wrong, but aknowledged the position was arguable&mdash;and the situation wasn't an urgent emergency&mdash;then I would go to an appropriate page and build consensus.  I would not use userspace inappropriately and hope the admin didn't notice. -- SCZenz 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of the pages have been protected against recreation.18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's where building consensus comes in. -- SCZenz 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out how amazingly accurate Tony's statement is on this one. Mathamatically he can't be wrong!!!! --T-rex 20:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose this be withdrawn as a false duality. Does not serve to move the discussion forward. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway vehemently opposes "vote stacking" tools
14) Tony Sidaway has expressed his concerns regarding possible misuse of templates and categories in terms of "this must die" and "kill it with fire".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * "This must die" is certainly one of mine; it turns up in the diffs I provide for my proposed finding of fact 17. "Kill it with fire" probably not, although I agree with the sentiment.  That templates have been abused in this way is beyond question.  For instance  (aka Dwain) between 2336 on 15 December, 2005 and 0254 the following morning contacted some 55 editors who had a pro-life userbox on their page with the following message:
 * "Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion!. Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities. The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life."
 * There are other examples, though I think that this would be getting off the subject somewhat. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Establishes Tony Sidaway's animus and motive for performing his actions. Based only on my (fallible) memeory at this stage, will tighten when difs found. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In light of comments like this one, Tony's position seems rather reasonable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone on wikipedia support voe stacking? --T-rex 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections I'll withdraw this as a show of good faith in clearing out the fillibuster that this arbitration has become. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway deletes the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia project page
17) At 21:05, 24 December 2005, created a page in Wikipedia project space called Catholic Alliance of wikipedia.  This page was avowedly intended: "for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group."  This page was not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia and constituted an overt and conscious attempt at organized vote stacking. At 00:56 the following day,  listed it for deletion.

In response, Shanedidona used the category system built into the Catholic userboxes and contacted over 40 users who were listed as Catholics and asked them to "please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia". This was another overt and conscious attempt to influence the result of debate on Wikipedia by manipulating the proportion of committed Roman Catholics who were involved.

At 13:09, reposted a copy of a comment by Aecis, the nominator, in which Aecis showed that every single keep voter in the debate had done so after being spammed by Shanedidona. At that time there was a clear consensus to delete the article. Tony Sidaway deleted it and announced this: "I have deleted this as "Not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.".

Over the following days the page was repeatedly restored by administrators who claimed that it was an out-of-process deletion, three times by, twice by , and once each by , , and , and deleted eight times by Tony Sidaway, while the clear consensus to delete continued. The debate was finally closed after three days, at 01:39, 28 December by, who also deleted the page.

During the debate, Tony Sidaway continued to discuss and defended his actions. ,,,,, saying:
 * "Campaigning of this type against our policy of neutrality must be stamped out ruthlessly, deleted on sight. In accordance with this I again delete this project page. There is a clear and insurmountable consensus to delete this, and even if there were not, it and every project page like it would still have to be deleted because of its conflict with that policy. Please do not restore this."

He also submitted his conduct to review by the arbitration committee, which rejected the case by (0/4/0/0) after seven days.

It is the position of Tony Sidaway that it was necessary to delete the page immediately because the debate on its deletion had already shown a clear consensus to delete, and the debate itself was being abused as a focal point for ongoing attempts to subvert the neutrality policy.

Those admins who undeleted the page indicated that they thought that taking unilateral action while the community was discussing the issue was disrespectful and against the deletion policy,, and because they Tony's actions were per se disruptive in the same way as edit warring and 3RR violations. It is the position of Tony Sidaway that the page clearly had not a snowball's chance in hell of not being deleted, and that the undeleters were process-wrangling for the sake of it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A factual account of circumstances pertaining to the deletion of the page. If these actions were wrong I should not be an administrator. It doesn't matter how often it was restored by others.  The only cause served by its continued existence was as a rallying point for the creator of the original page, whose avowed intention and continued actions constituted the attempted manipulation of debate in favor of a particular point of view. But I've added the numbers. --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The comment Nandesuka is looking for is listed above :
 * Every single word is as true, relevant and consistent with our prime directive--the neutrality policy--as when I first wrote them in December last year. Nothing comes before the neutrality policy, ever. Not even consensus, and certainly not straw polls. --Tony Sidaway 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder about the tenor of Nandesuka's comments here. My deletions, he says, were viewed as "disrespectful" and "One can absolutely believe that the page should have been deleted, yet recognize that Tony deleted it in a particularly odious and disruptive manner."  In the deletion debate, he said: "agree that there will certainly be consensus to delete this. That is a lousy reason to not let our consensus deletion process run its course" .    Nandesuka seems to be very close to admitting that, in his three undeletions of this moribund page, which openly violated our most treasured policy and for which a strong consensus to delete was evident within hours of the nomination, he was deliberately disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point about process.. If he thought there was no chance that the page would survive the debate (which seems obvious), he had no business undeleting it at all. --Tony Sidaway 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Karmafist restored it once, Fennec restored it once, Nandesuka restored it thrice, Sean Black restored it twice, and Musical Linguist restored it once while Tony Sidaway deleted it eight times. It helps when forming these statements to be accurate in language, and to avoid weasel words like "repeatedly" wherever possible. brenneman  {T}  {L}  14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony was not alone in this. Many other people (on IRC and elsewhere) recognised that this group and the page had a clear purpose to push POV on Wikipedia. If Tony had not spared us the effort, many of us, including me, would have done the same thing. --Improv 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What Tony was alone in was in taking unilateral action in a way that a number of people in the community, including admins, viewed as disrespectful. In fact, you'll note that a number of the undeleting admins spoke out against the page, or voted to delete it.  One can absolutely believe that the page should have been deleted, yet recognize that Tony deleted it in a particularly odious and disruptive manner. Nandesuka 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This finding of fact seems like a bit of puffery to me. Tony did not delete the page seven times in three days because the consensus on WP:MFD was to delete; he deleted the page seven times in three days in in spite of the community consensus; as this very finding of fact acknowledges, Tony has made it clear that had the consensus in deletion been otherwise, he would have deleted anyway. Nicholas Turnbull, by actually closing the debate and taking action pursuant to the discussion provides a useful counterexample for how one can constructively ignore all rules, and yet still not seem to be treating the community consensus process with contempt. Tony seems to have simply been choosing to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Nandesuka 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See, that's what I mean when I say above that you really aren't understanding WP:POINT - it's about doing things you don't want to happen to make a point - David Gerard 13:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times in the face of a massive consensus to delete
20.1) On December 27, 2005, during the course of the deletion debate Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, in response to what he perceived as ongoing wheel warring over an out-of-process deletion by Tony Sidaway, Nandesuka undeleted the page three times, at 20:15, 20:54 and 23:31 although, despite strong evidence of attempted vote stacking, there was already a massive consensus of 52 to 9 for delete and he stated at 20:17, in announcing his first undeletion, that "there will certainly be consensus to delete this,"  and reprimanded Tony Sidaway for "cutting short the debate."
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is up to the arbitration committee to decide whether you will be a party to this case.


 * I just don't see how anyone can say "there will certainly be consensus to delete this" and then undelete the page in question three times so that some debate can trundle on to a foregone conclusion. That's absolutely absurd. This isn't a debating forum, it's a working encyclopedia. Bin trash and get on with writing articles. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I am not a party to this case, so I'm not sure what the relevance of a finding of fact including me is. However, to the extent you wish to include it, the summary is inaccurate, since "there will be consensus" is not the same thing as "there is consensus," and since you omit a number of relevant facts. I have tried to correct it, and you have cloned it above. Furthermore, the other admins who undeleted the article also acknowledged that it would likely be deleted. I think your motives here are fairly transparent. Nandesuka 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You should surely assume better faith - David Gerard 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite delete the George Bush vandalism userbox template
18) At 19:42, 25 December 2005, created a userbox template Template:User GWB with the wording "This user hates George W. Bush and wishes they didn't have to revert vandalism there."  The name of the President was linked to the article about the President, which is one of the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia.

It is the position of Tony Sidaway that this was not only an unsuitable statement for a template but also amounted, through the transclusion mechanism, to multiple cases of incitement to vandalize the article in the manner of "Don't stick beans up your nose."

At 11:20, 10 January 2006, Tony Sidaway deleted this template as part of a group of attack templates which had been brought to his attention by Doc_glasgow. He listed them all for review on Deletion review.

Over the next thirteen hours the template was repeatedly deleted, five times by Tony Sidaway, once each by Doc glasgow, Zoe and Carbonite, and restored three times by Jtdirl, and once each by Celestian Power, Dragons flight, DESiegel and Alai. The template was eventually edited to say "This user opposes George W. Bush and vandalism of his Wikipedia biography" without any link to the article.

Before, throughout, and after this incident, Tony Sidaway announced, explained and defended his actions, ,,,.,, and produced a gallery of the templates so that non-administrators could see what had been deleted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A factual account of circumstances pertaining to the deletion of the template. If these actions were wrong I should not be an administrator. Again the number of times it was restored is immaterial.  The template was an ongoing vandalism risk and needed to be killed immediately. But I've added the numbers. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, accuracy. Dragons flight restored it once, Celestianpower restored it once, DESiegel restored it once, Jtdirl restored it twice, Alai restored it once, and Jtdirl restored it a final time. Carbonite deleted it once, Zoe deleted it once, Doc glasgow deletd it once, and Tony Sidaway deleted if five times. To avoid mentioning these numbers explicitly and to use the more vague term "repeatedly" may unintentionally cause the casual reader to overlook the fact that Tony Sidaway deleted this template more times than the other three deleting admins combined.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus admonished on policy
1) Crotalus horridus is admonished to avoid removing well established policy statements, whatever his misgivings, without careful and thoughtful discussion of the implications.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Related to proposed principle 4, "Jimbo as the ultimate authority", which was adopted 8-0 with 2 abstentions in the peodphile userbox wheel war case. Although I think the dire warnings of desysoppings and other retribution uttered by some in the discussion were somewhat misplaced, I think it's going a bit far to remove an entire criterion for deletion once it has been supported by Jimbo, an act which was accepted widely as an honest attempt by Jimbo to resolve a policy logjam, and used successfully by several administrators. This Crotalus did on February 12th. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Kim's well stated concerns, I have added ", without careful and thoughtful discussion of the implications." We all know that we change Wikipedia policy not so much by changing words on the wiki as by changing our minds, .  For major changes, that requires discussion--discussion that had been strongly urged in this case by Jimbo himself. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concede Kim's points. Crotalus is a good editor and deserves the benefit of the doubt.  On February 12 he removed the clause overtly and with a stated, and quite reasonable, justification.  He did so after seeing modifications that in his opinion would have unreasonably expanded the scope of the clause to apply to transcluded items in userspace.  While I find myself on the other side of the issue, I think that his action was reasonable in the circumstances


 * Accordingly I withdraw my support for this proposal. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The T1 policy was less than a week old when Crotalus horridus removed them, and the policy was (and remains) the subject of intense debate. Given that, we cannot truthfully call this policy "well established". --Aaron 16:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wishes to remove this CSD must explain why they think that "divisive and inflammatory" userboxes benefit the project. I'm not sure that even Crotalus goes that far in [|his essay]. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No they have the option of showing that speedy delete is not the correct way of dealing with any such problem.Geni 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if we ignore Crotalus' edits to CSD, he has on several occasions edited well-established policy pages without obtaining a consensus, including WP:IAR and WP:BP. All his edits were reverted. I'm planning to submit this into evidence in more detail. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You realise that this will be opening the door to Tony's editing of policy and guideline pages, don't you? brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bad bad plan. Recognises "policy" as such, disallows any form of guideline maintenance. Revolution would follow. Kim Bruning 12:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If a policy is well-established by consensus, it's a good idea to discuss it first, so I don't see the problem with this. But never mind that debate; the real issue is that Crotalus reverted Jimbo.  What Jimbo writes as policy is policy, and not to be removed lightly by other editors. -- SCZenz 16:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm torn on this. He could have been applying the Bold, revert, discuss method. Though his edit summary could have shown it at least (It's not in the reccomendations though, for reasons). (and it's a VERY tricky method to get right) Kim Bruning 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose this be withdrawn as the initiator has withdrawn his support. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway to be desysopped
3) Tony Sidaway has repeatedly shown egregiously poor judgement as an administrator and is to be desysopped at the end of this case. If he wishes to apply for sysop powers again, he may do so after two months have passed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See proposed principle 12 and my comments in proposed findings of fact 17 and 18.  The period is arbitrary; if I were asked to hand back my bit, I would be unlikely ever to want to apply for it again.  Either my judgement is sound or it is not and (since I'm not a teenager any more) that is unlikely to change much over time. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Seriously no. If you have to go here, how about banning him from deletion debates. (Although this might perhaps be an arbitration committee version of disrupting to make a point) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 February 2006
 * Taking no sides on whether Tony should be desysopped or not, I think the two month period goes way over the line. Ral315 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll concur. The idealology of the Tony making an act of disruption to the encyclopedia has no basis of fact, nor a specific concensus from established discussion per the community. -ZeroTalk 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this proposed remedy written entirely by Tony? Has anyone else even edited the text?  And hasn't Tony proposed that he be dead-minned at least four times now?  brenneman  {T}  {L}  22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (a) Utterly irrelevant. Write one you like. (b) Do you mean you don't want this to happen? - David Gerard 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose that this be withdrawn. Raised as false duality, no support voiced by any editor. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes limited
6) Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden. Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are unlimited. A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Draconian solution for a problem I'm not sure we have. I want to investigate the situation first, rather than jumping to this slash and burn solution. Fred Bauder 16:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * See proposed finding of fact 21.1: Proposed policy on userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Cutting the Gordian knot. de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community consensus" as (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims of the project was how we got into this mess and (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth of flamewars. The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors. Alternate version: The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration of this as policy. - David Gerard 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold on, since when does ArbCom get to legislate policy? Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hence "Alternate version: The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration of this as policy." The AC doesn't, but the mess has arrived at their doorstep. In any case, I think something like this is needed at this stage, however we arrive at it. I'd also like ideas on what other varieties of userbox should be on the "permitted" list - David Gerard 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, I think we've had more than enough evidence enough to form principles and FoFs to support every clause of the above. (And now you know how AC decisions actually tend to be written: write a remedy and then work out why you thought it was a good idea in terms of principles and FoFs.) The only question is whether the above would make the community (bless 'em) collectively cough up their own skulls. Or at least those parts of the community who have made more edits to articles than to userboxes - David Gerard 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I should point out that I'm not entirely convinced this is a great idea precisely as worded myself; I wanted to try writing an extreme version and working down from there. (Note also that my own userpage presently falls afoul of this one.) However, I do think switching userboxes from default-allow to default-deny is a good idea. - David Gerard 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also floated it on wikien-l, which should keep its readers happily occupied for a while - David Gerard 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you knocked out the T1 one thing what makes you think you couldn't get community consensus with a little debate? Of course if you did get it through we could have the fun arguments over what exactly counts as a userbox and is 133t a lanugage (you get round that one by limiting languages to those there are wikipedias for).Geni 15:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that last one - Wikipedias or proposed Wikipedias (knowing who speaks Cantonese is conceivably useful to the encyclopedia). We could also have an explicit deny list on the "other userboxes" thing - political advocacy is TFDable if not speedyable, that sort of thing.
 * Very little point of haveing them for proposed langauges. Solidly defineing what isn't allowed (but rember anything can be put through TFD regardless) would make T1 less of an abuse of CSD.Geni 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Sanskrit, Old Church Slavonic, and Ancient Greek do not have proposed Wikipedias. I would in any case prefer to outline what is forbidden, rather than what is permitted. Septentrionalis 01:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following findings of principle: (This declairation would include templates for: languages, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, wiki-tasking (RC patroller, mediator etc).... 'Editing interest' would allow templates, for example, 'user interested in US politics' but not 'user democrat'; 'user Christian theology' but not 'user Christian believer'; 'user abortion debates' but not 'pro-life'; 'scientology article editor' but not pro- or anti-.) --Doc ask?  01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a webhost or a soapbox (surely an existing policy)
 * 2) Wikipedia template space and transclusion exist only to serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. (no much of a stretch)
 * 3) Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors. (again this is policy - single use templates are usually subst and deleted on TfD).
 * 4) NPOV is non-negotiable 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates' - Jimbo Wales.
 * 5) Userboxes existing in the template space should be those useful to the progect. e.g. declaring a relevant skill, speciality, geographical focus, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring templates have no place here. (again I'd say this is existing policy - WP:TfD indicates that POV is a reason to delete a template - a fact that is being ignored.)
 * I have a bit of a problem with "NPOV is non-negotiable". It surely applies to articlespace. But to userspace??? ... I don't think so. Carried to the extreme it would forbid me from wishing someone else a happy birthday or congratulating them on having been made an admin, or even telling them I thought they did a good job editing a particular article, and it would forbid anyone from saying they prefer inclusionism, or even that they "maintain a strict policy of neutrality"!!! Further, as I have argued elsewhere, knowing POV may aid the purposes of the encyclopedia. It is advocating POV that is bad. ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who's carrying it to the extreme? Not me. The net effect of wikipedia policies has to further an NPOV encyclopedia. Arguably declaring your POV upfront on a userspace might help that (although clearly Jombo doesn't think so). But the net effect of allowing dozens of templates declaring POV (and advocacy is only one step away) is to compromise the the neutrality of the encyclopedia by encouraging factionalism. It isn't just that I choose to declare that I support position x, it is that I wear the centrally provided badge of the set of wikipedians who hold x-POV (and are opposed to the sey of wikipedians that hold y). Actually there is a only fine line between declaring a POV and advocasy. Is 'this user believes abortion is murder' POV declaring or advocacy'? What about 'this user belives abortion is murder because ...'? --Doc ask?  01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you're addressing what I said. I'm not talking about templates when I say I have an issue with "NPOV is non-negotiable" as a blanket principle in userspace. You're not addressing my examples of extremely mild things that would be prohibited under such a blanket principle, you're trotting out things we both agree are not appropriate points of view (with advocacies attached) even in userspace. Go look at my user page and then, if you're really still sure that principle is a good idea in userspace, convince me that I should remove my (subst'd, mind you, not templatised) "This user believes that some Wikipedia flame wars are akin to a pit full of hungry crocodiles.", or "This user finds edit/revert wars disruptive." because those are points of view, after all. I think you should consider addressing the reasons why I find a blanket prohibition not necessarily a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The problem is that this requires editorial judgement, which is what guidelines are for. Policy is for dealing with people who don't have judgement, so has to be black-and-white. And we're talking policy here. - David Gerard 09:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me that there's an issue with this as worded if it excludes "This user finds edit/revert wars disruptive", or not. But I'll agree that policy requires black and white (or "clear lines" would be my preferred way of stating it) to remove judgement. I just don't think the line that #4 lays down is in the right place as drafted, and needs to be moved, since it (as blanket) applies to everything, including non templatised statements on user pages that are written by hand and are (relatively) non controversial POV. (not liking flame wars is a POV but I'm FINE with discriminating against those that like flame wars!) ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this a lot. Demanding neutrality of userboxes is not a stretch IMO, because they look like rubber stamps of some standing on a page. Personal views should go in the user page text (where they are (2) useful but (1) clearly the user's own words, not a bumper sticker). So I might have a "This user edits on WP:SCN" userbox and in my page text have "I am a noted critic of Scientology ." Make sense? - David Gerard 09:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose that this be withdrawn as only at best tangential to the issue at hand. This isn't a discussion to determine policy.-  brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway banned
8) For disrupting Wikipedia, Tony Sidaway is banned for one month. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Follows from the more lurid allegations raised by various parties. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I think I should be banned for a bit if I've had a disruptive effect rather than, as I firmly believe, an overwhelmingly beneficial one. --Tony Sidaway 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify for User:Fubar Obfusco, yes I do think that disruptive users should sometimes be banned, and I support a ban for myself if I have harmed Wikipedia. This is something that I want the Committee to consider. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Why are you proposing banning yourself? Do you want to be banned? Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Tony: But we'll miss you for a whole month. Couldn't you set it to three weeks, 23 hours, 47 minutes and 15 seconds? Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it a WP:POINT violation to propose something you don't want, in order to make a point? --FOo 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the workshop works. It exists to hammer out possible solutions to the problem at hand, and anyone can contribute. Tony may not want to be banned, but he may feel that if the community/arbcom decides he is wrong, he deserves to be banned. Johnleemk | Talk 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Johnleemk, that stretches the bounds of assuming good faith far beyond what is reasonable. We're all striving to be polite and civil, but we should also strive to be frank.  Tony has suggested at least three times on this page that he be deadminned.  No one other than Tony has voiced a skerrick of approval for this suggestion.  One of these times reads very much like a threat to step down if findings are not only passed against him but even receive a lower level of support.  To deny that suggesting that he be banned is anything other than melodrama is disingenuous in the extreme.  We have to act civil, but we don't have to act pithed.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Using that logic, anything on the workshop nobody ever commented on isn't supported. For all we know, the arbitrators could be nodding their heads on the mailing list saying, "Yes, Tony should be desysoped". (Of course that's rather unlikely, but whatever.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Word Smog
This is now 24,666 words. Quite a few findings and remedies exist that, whatever the motivation for them being introduced, serve only to distract from the issues this was raised to examine. I'd propose that all of the following be also withdrawn. There's a lot of culling/merging to be done on what I've suggested to leave, but we've got to cut this down to a managable size.- brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this: I'm going to move all of these to withdrawn unless someone screams about one in particular that they think should stay. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will decide if and when to withdraw anything I have proposed. I recommend that you also make the same decision for your own proposals. --Tony Sidaway 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not see anyone remove stuff they didn't propose. But suggestions seem useful, and seem offered in the spirit of usefulness, though. If you withdraw some of yours, based on considering the suggestions made and then deciding what's right for you, and Aaron withdraws some he added, based on the same approach, this page may approach readable size again. (Just don't withdraw anything I have attached anything to because MY words are all gems... OK, kidding about that last bit.) ++Lar: t/c 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be limited to only withdrawing things we've proposed ourselves. For example "Deletion is a reversible operation" has been roundly decried, so I'd feel that anyone who removed it to the withdrawn page and left a link was simply doing normal refactoring.  Anything that anyone doesn't want moved to withdrawn, just strike out with your initials beside it below and I won't move it. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Further to that, I'd have thought that this was a specific sub-set of the theory of WP:OWN. If we cannot agree on a proposed finding, or insist upon our own wording in it, surely that indicates that that proposal has problems?  Aren't we meant to be presenting pellucid and unbiased testimony here? -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't decide the case. The proposals are just suggestions and the arbitrators (with whom I'm in contact as a party to the case) have indicated that they really would rather we didn't remove stuff once someone has commented on it. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have I commented on this yet? I too would prefer that neither of you refactor the page, myself; better all around if any withdrawing is left to a clerk or someone else suitably neutral. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think I'm suitably neutral. I've taken the liberty of moving everything that seemed as if it was soundly agreed should be withdrawn to the withdrawn page, and left some notes about what I, at least, would consider a reasonable criteria for withdrawl on certain issues that seemed headed towards being withdrawn. If anyone objects to my withdrawl of various things, feel free to revert those withdrawls. Michael Ralston 20:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding who removes what: I thought that the point of the clerk's office was simply that they did what wasn't already being done? Are we now being told that they have some additional authority over and above that of "normal" editors?  Would they, for example, be allowed to refactor a finding that Tony had proposed even if he continued to object?  Because that's a big deal if that is what is being said.  Futher to that, who is neutral?  Clearly I'm not considered to be so which I find unusual, but would Nandesuka be neutral?  How about David Gerard?  Wouldn't it be better to leave nebulous concepts like "neutrality" out of this and instead strive for some old-fashioned rough consensus?
 * Regarding what gets removed: Too much text makes it difficult to concentrate on the substantative issues.  There is no place in these proceedings for proposed remedies like "Pathoschild commended" or "Userboxes limited".  Failure to work with other editors in something as small as the wording of a proposed finding of fact is the heart of this discussion, and to mind mind the strike-outs below are as damning as any evidence presented thus-far.  I don't care who does the refactoring, only that it needs to be done.  Let's throw away the fluff and try to focus.
 * brenneman {T}  {L}
 * I've added an "I propose withdrawal because" comment to several sections. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed withdrawn

 * Proposed principles
 * Userpages, Content of user pages, and Function of user pages TS
 * Recreated content (version 2.0) TS
 * Second accounts TS
 * Jimbo as the ultimate authority, Jimbo as policy maker TS
 * Deletion is a reversible operation, with the exception of images TS
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider, Opinion on Userpages, Entertainment TS
 * Vocal "community consensus" cannot overrule good sense and project focus TS
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Two wrongs don't make a right TS
 * Process is Important TS
 * Assume good faith TS
 * The role of the arbitration committee TS
 * Proposed findings of fact
 * Tony Sidaway's statement on draft RfC TS
 * The Userboxes account was used to circumvent deletion of templates TS
 * Crotalus horridus vehemently opposes the T1 speedy deletion criterion, Tony Sidaway vehemently opposes "vote stacking" tools TS
 * The operation of User:Userboxes was an abuse of Wikipedia, The operation of User:Userboxes was not an abuse of Wikipedia TS
 * Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable TS
 * Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia three times, Nandesuka engaged in pointless deletion warring TS
 * Proposed policy on divisive user pages, Pathoschild's user project TS
 * Proposed remedies
 * Crotalus admonished on policy TS
 * Tony Sidaway to be desysopped TS
 * Nandesuka cautioned TS
 * Userboxes limited TS
 * Pathoschild commended TS

Proposed left to be worked on further

 * 1) Proposed principles
 * 2) Recreated content
 * 3) Wide latitude granted on userpages
 * 4) Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process
 * 5) Procedure in the event of active community conflict
 * 6) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * 7) Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted
 * 8) Proposed findings of fact
 * 9) Tony Sidaway has deleted many userboxes
 * 10) Tony Sidaway has engaged with the userbox question
 * 11) The sudden growth of userboxes on Wikipedia
 * 12) Extensive discussions have taken place regarding userboxes
 * 13) Crotalus horridus' recreation of userboxes
 * 14) Dispute over a proposal by Tony Sidaway on an RfC
 * 15) Tony says he'll stop disputed activities and review the situation in a month
 * 16) Tony Sidaway deletes the cloned and recreated userboxes
 * 17) The T1 speedy deletion criterion
 * 18) The Userboxes account was used to circumvent deletion of templates
 * 19) The nature of T1 speedy deletions
 * 20) Tony Sidaway's participation in the userbox debate
 * 21) Tony Sidaway states repeated deletion is an acceptable editing methodology
 * 22) Tony Sidaway has engaged in repeated reversal of other admin's action
 * 23) Tony Sidaway deletes the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia
 * 24) Tony Sidaway, Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite delete the George Bush vandalism userbox template
 * 25) Proposed remedies
 * 26) Tony Sidaway admonished on use of adminstrator's powers
 * 27) Tony Sidaway to not undo any administrative action undertaken by another admin more than once in a seven day period